The Cat wrote:Look who's lacking logic, himself using the logical fallacies of Argumentum ad Populum and Poisoning the Well!

A person who uses quranic verses to authenticate itself ought not to talk about logic (or scientific methodology) at all.

Even more surprising thing is people blindly follow this con man and cannot see through the deception. CAT is accusing you of some logical fallacies and he uses these buzz words often and yet he doesnt even understand what they mean and how they are to be applied . He is a gigantic troll to be precise.

Well now let us show him that some of the quranic verses exist in the quran only once and hence they are fabrications

Obviously Mecca is mentioned in the quran in the verse 48:24. He himself doesn't understand arabic though he loves to pretend that he knows . A native arabic speaker told me that sh!t heads from free minders apply the meaning of the root to the word formed from it. That is not how arabic language works. Words can have a different meaning from the roots from which they are derived. Now Since I aint an arabic literate I only know this much. There must be a good reason as to why every single translator has translated the 48:24 to include Mecca in it.

More ever the only new point that is worth addressing that he has brought here is that quran doesn't mention the location of Mecca. I may as well ask him to show the location of Mecca as described by the Sahih Bukhari or Sahih muslim ahadith. As far as I know sahih bukhari or sahih muslim hadith only talk about Mecca but they too are silent about location of Mecca and hence this sh!t head argument is useless to the core. Rest of the arguments about Abraha's scripture indicate his intellectual bankruptcy to understand what the other person writes.

Anyway he is asking as to why I defend the hadith. Its because quran alone sh!t heads want to tell us that Muhammad was a saint and therefore they need to eliminate the hadith. I defend hadith not because there is some useful content in it but because it exposes islam for what it is. Muhammad was a criminal . Period! Now what I do is use the very same islamic sources like hadith to attack islam.

Let's see an example to understand the vastness of CAT's stupidity ..Suppose if one claims that hitler killing millions of jews is a fact then does that mean he/she supports mass murders? According to this idiot CAT THATS SUPPORTING A MASS MURDERER because we are defending this and claiming that its a genuine fact ! Now Just because history is ugly we don't deny it. WE face it and condemn it. That's what I do with those ahadith. I don't deny they are ugly . I only say that they are true and that's what islam is all about.

Now most of the arguments used to debunk ahadith are useless and some of the arguments which create a problem for ahadith also create a problem for quran so logically speaking islam = Quran + ahadith or else its none and therefore muslims are left logically with 2 choices :

1) Take hadith as true and accept that Muhammad was a criminal OR2)Agree that both these books are unreliable

Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

an 84 page- ebook (a translation into Indonesian from thread Muhammad: Myth vs. Reality by The Cat) has made a shock to some Muslim readers. This has so far been downloaded over 400 times in my accounts alone (some people have published in other medias as well - upon which I have no ideas how many times it's been downloaded).

An effort to translate good readings into native languages is mostly needed since in moslem countries a publication of historical criticism method on islam is banned (but criticism upon other religions are deliberately at loose). It's really important that FFI members keep posting honest, intelectual & critical readings and make some scholarship books & articles noticable to public and be translated for non-english readers.

Highly appreciation for The Cat and others.

Regards

Hi Badranaya

Well done on the the ebook. It sounds like it's a hit. I think the most important thing here is that we are "all" trying to find the truth and there are maybe somethings here which may be a bit obscure or not quite right. But that is the beauty of this thread becuase it gives one something to think about that you may not have thought about before. If anything, I hope your book helps people to open their minds about their religion and start making enquiries for themselves.

The easiest is to demonstrate that Muhammad was living in the Northwest Arabia, anywhere between Eilat and Hegra. Certainly not where nowadays Mecca is located, but in the old area of al-Qura (6.92; 42.7). Or how Muhammad has been fabricating, like shown in this thread.

We're talking about Classical Arabic, that of the Koran, in which dictionaries state that MKK means sucking.1.-- Al-Qamus Al-Muheet: Used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him2.-- Lisan Al-Arab:- تمكَّك , TAMAKKAK: Insisted on requests from an opponent3.-- Al-Ghani: MKK: Sucking; used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him.4.-- Al-Waseet: MKK: used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from that opponent.

And this perfectly fits the context of the harsh negotiations that went on at Hubaidiya...More so, we have find out that the Quraysh were the inhabitants of the old al-Qura area,mentioned in 6.92 and 42.7, covering nearby Tabuk, Khaybar, al-Hijr (Hegra/Hegira) and al-Haram (or Al Ula/Dedan) where we now must locate the Koranic al-Masjid al-Haram!

BATN in 'bi-batni makkata':In 48.24 -bibatni makkata-, bi (preposition, in) batn is even wrongly translated as 'valley'while it rather means: midst, center, belly. These words mix with 'Mecca' don't fit at all...These negociations were never conducted in the 'center', or 'belly' of Mecca!

48.24 (as it is):And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them,in the valley of Mecca, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do.

48.24 (corrected):And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them,in the midst of wrangles, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do.

'Mecca' isn't mentioned anywhere else in the Koran but perfidiously added in some brackets, like by Shakir in 62.2, or Pickthall in 2.125, 2.196 & 33.6. I've also shown how 93.7 was soften. These translators were the puppets of their own vested interests.You're appeal to their authority is trampled by ALL the Classical Arabic dictionaries, the ultimate authority in Koranic meanings.

skynightblaze wrote:As far as I know sahih bukhari or sahih muslim hadith only talk about Mecca but they too are silent about location of Mecca and hence this sh!t head argument is useless to the core.

Irrelevant. As demonstrated above, the Koran doesn't even mentions Mecca. No more than in 2.125, 2.196, 33.6 (Pickthall) & 62.2 (Shakir).

Now, where was 'Mecca' and the direction of prayers at the time of Bukhari and Muslim?Do you think it's the same place as indicated by the oldest qiblas? The al-Qura of old?

skynightblaze wrote:I defend hadith not because there is some useful content in it but because it exposes islam for what it is. Muhammad was a criminal . Period! Now what I do is use the very same islamic sources like hadith to attack islam.

Right before that...

skynightblaze wrote:The reason they (Quranists) want to discard ahadith is because it exposes islam and nothing else ..... To be honest, to prove that Muhammad was criminal one doesn't need ahadith at all. Quran itself is a proof...

So what's your problem about them? Don't you want to expose Islam too? You don't even need the hadiths to prove Muhammad a deviant...

But do tell me, before the hadiths became authoritative 200 years after Muhammad, how the righteous caliphs (for example) were bad Koran alone Muslims for so long?After all they didn't even follow the prophet's examples while collecting the Koran...

skynightblaze wrote:Let's see an example to understand the vastness of CAT's stupidity ..Suppose if one claims that hitler killing millions of jews is a fact then does that mean he/she supports mass murders? According to this idiot CAT THATS SUPPORTING A MASS MURDERER because we are defending this and claiming that its a genuine fact !

What SNB has done is to acknowledge the authenticity of the hadiths. I know he didn't mean endorsing their content.Yet he did endorse their genuineness thus... the legal right for Muslims to apply them rightfully.

Mein Kampf was like the sunna of Hitler. Its legitimacy was believed for a short while.Historians wouldn't never ever endorse such legitimacy as SNB does with the hadiths...

this is like endorsing the sunna of Hitler (M.K.) to be rightfully -prescriptive- still.This is what he has done and is doing still. And that is disgusting.

You still don't even understand what is meant by defending the -authenticity- of the hadiths.

The Cat wrote:But, tell us now, do you still uphold the authenticity of the hadiths as you did?

Ofcourse I do. By saying ahadith are an authentic document of islam I dont mean I endorse their content.

It's clear that you never knew what you were talking about, and still is: authentic and authenticity do not mean the same.For example, Mein Kampf is an authentic book at the core of Nazism but its authenticity is loathsome to most everyone.

The Cat wrote:We're talking about Classical Arabic, that of the Koran, in which dictionaries state that MKK means sucking.1.-- Al-Qamus Al-Muheet: Used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him2.-- Lisan Al-Arab:- تمكَّك , TAMAKKAK: Insisted on requests from an opponent3.-- Al-Ghani: MKK: Sucking; used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him.4.-- Al-Waseet: MKK: used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from that opponent.

And this perfectly fits the context of the harsh negotiations that went on at Hubaidiya...More so, we have find out that the Quraysh were the inhabitants of the old al-Qura area,mentioned in 6.92 and 42.7, covering nearby Tabuk, Khaybar, al-Hijr (Hegra/Hegira) and al-Haram (or Al Ula/Dedan) where we now must locate the Koranic al-Masjid al-Haram!

BATN in 'bi-batni makkata':In 48.24 -bibatni makkata-, bi (preposition, in) batn is even wrongly translated as 'valley'while it rather means: midst, center, belly. These words mix with 'Mecca' don't fit at all...These negociations were never conducted in the 'center', or 'belly' of Mecca.

That is Interesting "The Cat". It sounds a bit like a "condition of surrender" negotiations ?.

skynightblaze wrote:I defend hadith not because there is some useful content in it but because it exposes islam for what it is. Muhammad was a criminal . Period! Now what I do is use the very same islamic sources like hadith to attack islam.

Right before that...

skynightblaze wrote:TOne has to understand why these people resort to such acrobatics. The reason they want to discard ahadith is because it exposes islam and nothing else .These people want to rewrite history and white wash the sins of muhammad and claim that he was a saint and that is why they try to find every single fault they can find with the hadith. To be honest, to prove that Muhammad was criminal one doesn't need ahadith at all. Quran itself is a proof but ahadith add clarity to the crimes of muhammad.

So what's your problem about them? Don't you want to expose Islam too?

I have added my words and colored them in red which you deliberately skipped! Not only you are a troll but you are a dishonest person.

The Cat wrote:You don't even need the hadiths to prove Muhammad a deviant...

This is the last time I am telling you troll that Quran doesn't tell us anything about Muhammad's personal life and how he lived. The authenticity of quran depends on the character of Muhammad. IF he was a fraud then quran may as well be flushed down a toilet and therefore knowing Muhammad is very important. His character plays important role in determining whether quran is really a word of GOd or not.Also quran corrected Muhammad when he sinned and hence if Muhammad deviated from anything we can expect to know that in the quran.

The Cat wrote:But do tell me, before the hadiths became authoritative 200 years after Muhammad, how the righteous caliphs (for example) were bad Koran alone Muslims for so long?After all they didn't even follow the prophet's examples while collecting the Koran...

These idiotic arguments have been answered time and again. I have already shown you thousands of times that early hadith existed. You claim there are no manuscripts for them but then there are also no manuscripts for quran. If you can believe in the quran without its original manuscripts then you have got no right to demand for manuscripts. More ever The caliphs werent quran alone muslims. They didnt need the ahadith because they had experienced it first hand. Now since you are a troll of the highest caliber you would keep spinning around this fact time and again.

Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

The Cat wrote:We're talking about Classical Arabic, that of the Koran, in which dictionaries state that MKK means sucking.1.-- Al-Qamus Al-Muheet: Used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him2.-- Lisan Al-Arab:- تمكَّك , TAMAKKAK: Insisted on requests from an opponent3.-- Al-Ghani: MKK: Sucking; used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him.4.-- Al-Waseet: MKK: used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from that opponent.

And this perfectly fits the context of the harsh negotiations that went on at Hubaidiya...More so, we have find out that the Quraysh were the inhabitants of the old al-Qura area,mentioned in 6.92 and 42.7, covering nearby Tabuk, Khaybar, al-Hijr (Hegra/Hegira) andal-Haram (or Al Ula/Dedan) where we now must locate the Koranic al-Masjid al-Haram!

What source did you use to understand the part that I have colored? Where does quran utter the word "Hubaidiya"? Where does quran talk about negotiations? You seem to pick up the context of this verse from sources other than quran here and then claim that your translation fits the context perfectly well!. See what a hypocrite and a huge troll you are?? It seems that a troll like you have no problem in using sources other than quran to make your case but when they don't suit your idiotic ideas you seem to reject them.Now if you are referring to sources other than quran to understand the context then any source will point you to MECCA. This verse is talking about MECCA. Btw just because a translation fits a context well it doesn;t mean its the only correct one.

I am not interested in replying to the rest of your gibberish post which you keep repeating time and again.More ever I dont believe that you are such a great person with arabic seeing something new that none till date has even found or looked upon. I would rely on 40 renowned translators for their arabic rather than relying on you.I categorize you besides BMZ who is the troll of the century but it seems that you are a compete to him now and he may no longer retain his no 1 spot.

Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

I could never understood cat, if he believes in islam, is it true or false, muhammad was prophet or not, quran is true or not ........... the cat can you please in couple of simple sentences explain what you believe in

skynightblaze wrote:I have added my words and colored them in red which you deliberately skipped! Not only you are a troll but you are a dishonest person.

You're the one here who introduced a dishonest red herring. I've added (...) indicating that there was more!

You've said: ''To be honest, to prove that Muhammad was criminal one doesn't need ahadith at all. Quran itself is a proof''.And hadiths don't add clarity but confusions. Many paint Muhammad as a grand sage to be followed... not so in the Koran.

So my question remains unanswered thanks to your Red Herring, ad Hominem and Poisoning the Well fallacies. What else?

skynightblaze wrote:

The Cat wrote:You don't even need the hadiths to prove Muhammad a deviant...

Quran doesn't tell us anything about Muhammad's personal life and how he lived. The authenticity of quran depends on the character of Muhammad. IF he was a fraud then quran may as well be flushed down a toilet and therefore knowing Muhammad is very important. His character plays important role in determining whether quran is really a word of GOd or not.Also quran corrected Muhammad when he sinned and hence if Muhammad deviated from anything we can expect to know that in the quran.

Wrong the authentication of the Koran only relies on the Uthman codex, in which Muhammad played no part at all. Quite the contrary, it was collected against Muhammad's examples... so they weren't binding even to these caliphs!

What's not in the Koran CANNOT be religiously allowed like in the Islamic Shariah through the hadiths. Get it???

skynightblaze wrote:I have already shown you thousands of times that early hadith existed. You claim there are no manuscripts for them but then there are also no manuscripts for quran. If you can believe in the quran without its original manuscripts then you have got no right to demand for manuscripts. More ever The caliphs werent quran alone muslims. They didnt need the ahadith because they had experienced it first hand.

Wrong we've got manuscripts of the Koran, like the Sana'a manuscript... We have no first hand testimonies of the existence of any'early' hadith and they all sprang AFTER the Abbasids... None of the hadiths were authoritative before 200 years after Muhammad. All these historical FACTS concur to underline that they were forged backward to skip away Muhammad's interdiction over them.

The caliphs knew how to pray and marry without the hadiths, because they followed the Sunna (ancestral practices), not the hadiths.Now these ancestral practices would have been perpetuated without them. But then, a class of Islamic Pharisees took over Islam...

And I've told you, time again, how Muhammad is not even depicted as an Imam in the Koran, wherein he's nobody but a messenger.

____________________

skynightblaze wrote:if you are referring to sources other than quran to understand the context then any source will point you to MECCA. This verse is talking about MECCA.Btw just because a translation fits a context well it doesn;t mean its the only correct one.

And, aren't you the one who said that neither Bukhari or Muslim gave any location for Mecca, my very point of contention?

Now, if a translation fits the context chances are it's right; the versions of the translators don't, as explained right above.I've looked at the translations and most of them translated -bibatni- as 'valley' which is so plainly wrong, the Arabic for valley being WADI. The others saw the blunt and translated more correctly 'midst' (Y. Ali), 'center', 'belly' or 'heart'' (etc).

But this is exposing the fallacy of 'Mecca' since the Muslims weren't ever allowed in, having to stay out, so it couldn't have been in the 'heart' of Mecca, the negotiations and the treaty taking place ten miles away... in the spring of Hudaibiya.http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Arti ... _talib.htm

skynightblaze wrote:I am not interested in replying to the rest of your gibberish post which you keep repeating time and again. More ever I dont believe that you are such a great person with arabic seeing something new that none till date has even found or looked upon. I would rely on 40 renowned translators for their arabic rather than relying on you.I categorize you besides BMZ who is the troll of the century.

Pathetic litany of logical fallacies -as always- when snb is cornered. As a flagrant ignoramus about history... you're the TROLL herein!

If anyone finds you logical then I feel sorry for them. You latest post is not worth addressing and I have already replies to these arguments plenty of times and not interested in repeating the same .

Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

iffo wrote:I could never understood cat, if he believes in islam, is it true or false, muhammad was prophet or not, quran is true or not ........... the cat can you please in couple of simple sentences explain what you believe in

You too Iffo??

join the club of FFI readers who never understood what The Cat is writing., that also includes The Cat....

iffo wrote:I could never understood cat, if he believes in islam, is it true or false, muhammad was prophet or not, quran is true or not ........... the cat can you please in couple of simple sentences explain what you believe in

You too Iffo??

join the club of FFI readers who never understood what The Cat is writing., that also includes The Cat....

Include me too . I never used to understand what this person wrote on this forum . I used to think that may be this person is a scholar and I am not fit to understand what he writes but when I actually started debating him I realized that he was a pathetic poster and the reason as to why people don't understand what he writes is because he is incoherent and not because he really is a scholar and people are dumb to understand him. His logic is pathetic and I must say that no member on FFI is as poor as this person as far as logic is concerned. Again I think we must remember a saying "Everything that shines is not gold". He crafts posts in such a way that the other party is hypnotized and they think he is a real scholar but the breaking news is he is a gigantic troll(not even ordinary)

Look around yourself and you'll find people with virtues are never required to demand respect since they automatically earn it. It is only those that are devoid of any virtues need to threaten and bully to gain respect. Needless to say that quran cannot be from God.

skynightblaze wrote:Include me too . I never used to understand what this person wrote on this forum . I used to think that may be this person is a scholar and I am not fit to understand what he writes

The Cat wrote:Now, stop this fallacious argument that you've proven something without giving the proper reference to check.For you never did 'refute' anything without being answered and then resorting to industrial logical fallacies...

Thanks for showing everyone how your dismissive attitude backfire at you, proving how you never refuted anythingwithout being answered and then, when cornered, resorting to logical fallacies all over again, just like the above...

Thanks for admitting your own debating incompetence in such clear ways...

Thanks so much for the plethoric reference listed for me, though most of them are known well to me (such as Hagarism by Crone & Cook, Meccan Trade by Crone, Why I'm not A Muslim by Warraq as well as other sources from answering islam.com). Some are new to my reach like Ten Myths About Islam.

I commited myself to make these writings more publicized, so that they are reachable for english speaking people in muslim countries as we know that such books wouldn't be available in the bookstores and public library.

Meanwhile, do you have files of : - Sectarian Milieu - The Quest for The Historical Muhammad - A Jew Named Mahommed (engish version)- The Quest : THe Historians Search For Jesus & MUhammad by PF Peters?

Thanks & Regards

Well I'm glad that you've been through all that already, it's a ton more than snb (-: And your commitment is certainly laudable...